<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (2) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107365</link>
    <description>A statutory deeming fiction under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, that treats a declarant&#039;s appeal or reply as withdrawn on acceptance of the declaration, also extends to the connected matter of a co-noticee where the proceedings are deemed settled. The Tribunal held that this consequence must be carried through to its legal end, so the connected appeal stood abated and could not be treated as allowed. The appellant also could not claim refund of the pre-deposit on the footing that the appeal had been merits-allowed, because the relied-upon order only implemented the High Court&#039;s direction to pass formal orders and did not confer such relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:41:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107365</link>
      <description>A statutory deeming fiction under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, that treats a declarant&#039;s appeal or reply as withdrawn on acceptance of the declaration, also extends to the connected matter of a co-noticee where the proceedings are deemed settled. The Tribunal held that this consequence must be carried through to its legal end, so the connected appeal stood abated and could not be treated as allowed. The appellant also could not claim refund of the pre-deposit on the footing that the appeal had been merits-allowed, because the relied-upon order only implemented the High Court&#039;s direction to pass formal orders and did not confer such relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>